Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of peer collaboration and discourse patterns on conceptual change in the context of high-school students learning from incompatible scientific information. The domain of investigation was biological evolution. Participants included 108 students from Grades 9 and 12 randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) peer-conflict; (2) individual-conflict; (3) peer-assimilation and (4) individual-assimilation. Students were asked to think aloud or discuss with their peers eight statements consisting of scientific information ordered in ways that either maximized or minimized conflict. Several measures of prior knowledge and conceptual change were obtained. Peer collaboration resulted in some mixed findings suggesting that peer effects may vary depending on collaborative interactions. In-depth analyses of collaborative interactions indicated two discourse patterns: 'surface' moves included rating, ignoring, rejecting, and patching to eliminate differences; 'problem-centred' moves involved problem recognition, formulation of questions, and construction of explanations. Comparisons between successful and unsuccessful learners showed significant differences in their proportional use of surface and problem-centred moves. External conflict did not lead to deeper discourse and more conceptual change; students may need to experience meaningful conflict. These findings suggest why peer collaboration only works sometimes and indicate the importance of helping students to engage in productive discourse.